John,
An interesting range of thinking. I have some thoughts:
1) Traveller did this a long time ago. They posited that at some point, the
distinction between ground air and sea combatants vanished. Why? Sensor tech
hit a certain level, as did com tech. Energy was near limitless so you could
push a brick through the atmosphere at stupid speeds and with stupid levels of
manouverability. You could build faster or slower grav tanks, ones with
varying weapons kit, ones with varying quality sensor or comms, ones with more
or less endurance and capability
to operate selaed and ones with more or less armour - all sort of trade
offs for design based on how you planned to fight them. But in essence, all
could fly, deploy from orbit, operate over huge distances. Slow ones moved
about 350 kph, fast ones up around 1000 kph. It really does change
how you fight. But the way Traveller limited it - you need high tech
logistics, high tech trained personel, and a big budget to put this together.
2) I question your zero logistics PoV. You don't account for failures. The
Apache has been shown as case in point to be only combat capable about 50% of
the time. Planes spend a lot of downtime for inspections and rebuilds. Would
Grav be any different? Maybe. But when you pile on a
hoi-folloi fire control/search sensor suite, life support, high tech
comms, weapons systems, grav propulsion and avionics, etc. - You have a
complex beast that probably requires some fair level of logistical support
even if they are individually well designed, robust systems with hot swappable
components. I think you'll still see a need for logistics, and in this case
logistics forces that can operate on a planetary scale
to deliver supply, recover vehicles, conduct in-field repairs anywhere
on the planet.
3) There is a lot of energy in one atom of hydrogen. It is surprising how much
energy you could get from fusion. Small amounts of fuel (John might be a wee
bit on the short side, but a fair sized tank of hydrogen (fuel cell) could
support a tank for quite a while. Especially if it
didn't use a DFFG but instead used GMS or other non-energy-consumptive
main armament. The more shooting with energy consuming weapons, the more high
speed manouvering, etc. the faster you'll burn fuel. This is no
different than today - a harrier can VTO, but it burns a lot of fuel
doing it. Better to take off from a ramp. VTOs are showy, but waste fuel
where they aren't needed. Same logic with grav vehicles - don't fly fast
when you don't have to. Don't shoot the big gun when it isn't required, etc.
4) You could design special purpose grav tanks for varying niches. I think
you'll find that multipurpose ones (given a presumed expense to move them to
systems far away and the global scale of their ops) may be more favoured. I
have a choice: Send three types that do three jobs well, or one that can do
three jobs somewhat okay. I'm a CFO... what do I send? One. The almighty buck
will drive future militaries and governments just like it does in most places
today. Multirole may win out in many cases. Only very rich countries will be
able to do otherwise (maybe the NAC) or maybe only for some forces.
5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field. Maybe I'm the NAC
and can only field a company of grav-mobile infantry and a squadron of
grav-mobile tanks to take on a local enemy on a planet. They can put
together four brigades of mech infantry, some aerospace interceptors,
arty, and some locally produced light armour (a demi-brigade). Sure, I
have orbital fire support, comms, and mobility. I have hitting power in a
concentrated package. But my men can die and I take casualties badly..... Grav
only makes conventional forces useless in a 1:1 situation. It is a force
multiplier (a great one no doubt, just like AC is a force multiplier for
movement over water and crappy terrain before grav is available) but basic
numbers and supplies of ready replacements make a difference.
Nice thoughts on HUMINT too.
Tomb.
> --- Tomb <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> 1) Traveller did this a long time ago. They posited
Yes, but there is still a world of difference between an Intrepid grav tank
and a Rampart. Granted that at TL15 the difference between a tank and a VTOL
are
gone, the GZG-verse is not at TL 15.
> It really does change > how you fight. But the way
Of course.
> 2) I question your zero logistics PoV. You don't
No, I said fuel. Fuel is by far the most time- and
transport- consuming resource.
> The Apache has been shown as case in point to be
Oddly enough, this number is a peacetime OR rate. In Desert Storm the OR rate
was closer to 90%.
> robust systems with > hot swappable components. I
IE: One where all the mechanics are mounted in grav vehicles.
> 4) You could design special purpose grav tanks for
I'll still argue. Specialization is necessary because of how badly a tank is
outclassed when trying to argue with a fighter. Or vice versa. What might be
common would be a preponderance of the "VTOL" style vehicle,
which has some air-to-air capability and some good
tank-hunting capability.
> 5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field.
Grav isn't that expensive--especially when expressed
as a fraction of total vehicle cost.
A high end grav tank (Heraclius) runs 331 points. That's with all the bells
and whistles that you can
fit on a size 3 tank except reactive/ablative armor.
Constantine IV weighs in at 267. It's a 19% savings to downgrade from grav to
fast tracked, FGP to CFE, and MDC to HKP. Stealth, PDS, and electronics remain
top of the line.
So you can almost buy 5 tanks for every 4 of mine. That's not a large enough
numerical advantage to make a difference against the sort of dislocating
effects grav can produce. Sure, you can downgrade your tanks further, but you
will start seeing drastic reductions in effectiveness. Besides which, if
you're going to be sending a small force against a large target, aren't you
going to be more concerned about shipping space than money? Grav gives several
times the bang for the buck at no increase in shipping space. In fact, by
reducing the need to haul extensive supplies
of fuel (An HMT-equipped force may need several months
worth of fuel to ensure they can operate until they capture a fuel refinery.
FGP means you can distill it from atmosphere or open water) you free up
considerable amounts of shipping space.
Nice ideas -- IIRC, the guys who designed Traveller at GDW determined
that
once anti-gravity mobility is introduced into the battlefield, then the
upper limit of the 3rd dimension goes straight up to orbit.
There's an interesting set of assumptions that you have to make to solve some
of the logistical problems. In short, despite the apparent complexity
of an anti-gravity drive and a fusion engine, you have to assume that
the
AFVs are robust enough that the 3-person crew can make field repairs.
(Otherwise, you'd have an expensive, and fragile "lord of the battlefield".)
I'd hesitate to use the DSII point system as a method for comparing AFV
designs, however. It's a handy way to get a rough estimate of the strength of
your overall force, but it breaks down when you make a
point-value-per-point-value comparison of two different AFVs.
-- Rick Rutherford
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Rick Rutherford <Rick@esr.com> wrote:
> some of the logistical problems. In short, despite
Depends. How much BDAR can a tank crew do today completely unassisted? If an
engine blows out, you still have to have mechanics and a crane to come pull
pack, fix it, and put it back. I've been an armored vehicle crewman, and my
level of 'field repair' capability runs to replacing missing sprocket bolts
and such.
> I'd hesitate to use the DSII point system as a
'Tis a slippery slope we slide down with that line of thinking. I suppose we
could rename the current DSII point system "Battle Points" or somesuch (BPV?)
and create a whole new points system (Economic Point Value) to reflect
economic assumptions. But a) that's
too much damn work, b)no-one's economic assumptions
are completely congruent, and c) it's of limited utility anyway.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > 5) Expense will limit how many forces you can field.
This argument rests on two legs:
1) The DS2 points costs accurately reflects the values of tracked and grav
propulsion
2) The DS2 points costs correspond directly to the "in-background" cost
of purchasing and maintaining the vehicles in question.
Both of these are IMO extremely dubious: the DS2 points system is demonstrably
broken in a number of other areas which makes me kind of wary about trusting
it in the other areas, and the points values it gives are
intended for balancing one-off tactical battles - they are intended to
reflect the vehicle's combat power *in a tactical battle only*. The tactical
combat power doesn't take operational or strategic advantages into account,
and none of these have anything to do with how expensive (in
in-background money) the vehicle is to operate.
Regards,
Okay, so we assume that the future logistical tail looks something like this:
Repair: About the same size as the modern equivalent.
Ammo (Non-energy-weapon): About the same size as the modern equivalent.
Fuel: Practically eliminated -- if anything, it can be rolled into basic
maintenance.
If the support group gets smaller & lighter, then a tank company can (and most
likely will) be sent further away from its home base. Given a mostly
self-sufficient tank company (except for the "mail-order" replacement
parts & ammo), it starts to resemble a mercenary company, operating
independently and choosing its battles carefully.
-- Rick Rutherford
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 05:37 15/11/01 -0500, Rick Rutherford wrote:
They probably still won't go to far beyond the range of whatever rates as
'artillery' or aircover(?) if they can avoid it.
I'm not going to even begin to touch the logistics/points cost issue on
this topic. But I'm glas it was brought up, because it addresses a question I
was going to ask:
Just how DOES Grav work in the game? Does it follow one particular concept
of grav? Is it truly anti-gravity, some sort of field which creates
acceleration away from the center of mass of the planet, or the pull towards
the star or an extraterrestreal body, or is it a form of repulsion away from
the localized terrain, or is it Mag Lev, or can it be any of these you wish?
If so, it seems that the capabilities of the Grav vehicle are affected by how
you define Grav. A vehicle that can truly create an artificial "opposite
acceleration" grav drive WOULD be unlimited by altitude
considerations. One that isn't a real anti-grav, but a form of
repulsion, would be limited by altitude, and possibly even the ground over
which it
travelled (Maybe a Maglev can't get enough magnetic repulsion unless it's over
certain materials, maybe a pure repulsion method which uses a force
field to push against the ground, can't move over water, because it gives way
and they can't push against it).
Just a thought....
Triphibous to Full Metal Atkinson: "Say again... You're breaking up." <grin>
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:42:15 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Rick Rutherford <Rick@esr.com> wrote:
> If the support group gets smaller & lighter, then a
Especially considering the concept of a small brigade
or division-sized unit attempting to secure a whole
planet with settlements scattered around a broad area, say the equivelant of
trying to police the population of Belgium spread over all of Europe.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Both of these are IMO extremely dubious: the DS2
Really? In what way--I've yet to find a truly bad
area.
> account, and none of these have anything to do with
Yeah, but it's what we got.
Guess I can throw in my two cents.
The way I see grav tech is the Repulsion type. A starship uses it grav drive
to repel itself from the nearest gravity well. The larger the drive the
farther away or smaller the gravity well can be for movement to occur.
If the grav drives on a tank are the same type of technology as those in
starships, then the main difference is the size of the drive, the power plant,
and the amount of fuel each carries. Starships are pretty huge so they have
big drives, big power plants, and carry enough fuel to operate over stellar
distances.
Grav tanks are fairly small when compared to a starship, otherwise how do they
get to other planets. I don't think there are any FTL capable grav tanks in
the GZGverse. So, they get little bitty grav drives, little bitty power
plants, and can carry limited fuel. The little bitty grav drive needs a BIG
gravity well or one that is VERY close in order to operate. Thus, under normal
operations they tend to hug the ground. For flight operations or orbital
insertions, the grav drive can be "pushed" by increasing the power supplied to
it, but this eats up fuel at a much higher rate than normal operations. Even
though you could fly all over the placed, and act like a vtol, or aerospace
fighter, I don't think you would want to since its going to eat up your fuel
at a much higher rate than the equivalent vtol or fighter. Since they are
going to have the streamlining and other nifty bits for attitude control that
a grav tank will porbably not. In game terms this doesn't really matter. Since
ammo isn't tracked, I don't see why you would want to track fuel.
On a points cost note: do most people cost there grav forces as if they were
drop troops, even if they start the game on the ground. Grav forces have the
capability so should pay for it, even if its not used in a scenario. I have
not looked at it but you might want them to pay for the interface lander
ability as well. I think that's the right one, my DSII book is at home.
Christopher K Smith
Here's another interesting question: If you're on a high-gravity world,
does
a grav tank travel more slowly? Should there be a "slow-grav" mobility
type?
Also DS2 grav units cannot fly. SG2 grav units can, but have no cost or points
system. And there is a lot of work to be done to homogenize the two.
IIRC in DS1 Grav units could execute pop-up attacks like VTOLS but in
DS2 they can't.
Chris D-W
> -----Original Message-----
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
Should you require further information please contact us using the details
below.
website: http://www.acuma.co.uk
--- "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
> <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
I'm assuming that in DSII, as it's representing a small portion of the FEBA, a
grav unit's flight capability is ignored as it would tactically
unsound--hell, VTOLs are pretty fragile (especially if
their enemy has HELs) and grav units are just that much slower.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >Both of these are IMO extremely dubious: the DS2
Some examples:
- Armour is much too cheap: the only reason not to have the maximum
possible amount ot armour is if you don't expect the vehicle to be fired at at
all (in which case it shouldn't have *any* armour).
- FCS for direct-fire weapons. For any given amount of points and no
matter
what direct-fire weapons you use, you're much better off buying Superior
FCS than Enhanced or Basic; it is a huge boost in accuracy for a rather minor
cost increase.
- Stealth is badly overpriced. For any given amount of points, you're
better off - usually *much* better off - forgetting the Stealth and
simply use the points you save to buy more combat vehicles.
The reason to have a points system in DS2 is as an aid to balance scenarios.
This requires the points system to give *the same* bang per buck pretty much
regardless of the designs... something the DS2 points system
doesn't do.
> >account, and none of these have anything to do with
My point was that IMO you don't even have that.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> - Armour is much too cheap: the only reason not to
Yeah. But in Real Life, the only reason not to have as much armor as is
practical revolves around shipping issues.
> - FCS for direct-fire weapons. For any given amount
I noticed that.
> - Stealth is badly overpriced. For any given amount
Really? That I'd dispute--of course I don't generally
stealth all my vehicles, and none of them to the limits of the system. But
I've clobbered plenty of mass armies with smaller stealthed forces.
> The reason to have a points system in DS2 is as an
Not necessarily--some things are silly regardless of
how you point them. For instance walkers above size
1.
The reason to incorporate them is to allow people to use universes where
they are more common - i.e. anime. As long as the rules exist, then it
makes it easier for people to adapt a different background to canon rules. If
walkers did not exist above size one, how could you run a Gundam or Macross
type game?
--Binhan
> Not necessarily--some things are silly regardless of
Silly, yes. But if they're allowed, they should be just as useful as any other
unit. Otherwise, why bother incorporating them into the rules?
Brian
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
Which in no way refutes Oerjan's comment.
> > - FCS for direct-fire weapons. For any given amount
I never buy anything but Superior, unless the vehicle's main mission is as an
APC or it's main target is infantry, since FCS has no effect on main weapons
vs. infantry.
> > - Stealth is badly overpriced. For any given amount
Was it the stalth that made the difference? I'm guessing if it was a small,
stealthed force, it also wielded better weapons and FCS.
> > The reason to have a points system in DS2 is as an
Silly, yes. But if they're allowed, they should be just as useful as any other
unit. Otherwise, why bother incorporating them into the rules?
My question was rhetorical - the point being that for the game to be
fair and balanced, a walker, while having a different set of abilities and
limitations different from those of a Grav tank or a tracked tank, should be
just as effective a unit in the game as any other vehicle costing the same
amount of points.
Brian
"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."
- S. Freud
> From: Binhan Lin <Lin@RXKINETIX.com>
Points shouldn't be the only measure of a unit's effectiveness, which is why
most point systems fail. Most of a unit's value is in how you use it. A huge
tank force composed of systems for use against vehicles is vulnerable
to a much smaller force of infantry armed to the teeth with Anti-tank
weapons. Does this mean Tanks are underpriced? Or that infantry is overpriced?
If a player bunches his units and a single artillery strike takes them all
out, does that mean the artillery strike should be priced as much as all the
vehicles destroyed? Would a squadron of wheeled tanks be worth as much against
a similarly priced squadron of GEV vehicles on swampy terrain? Or would you
have to reduce the price of wheeled vehicles since they are of less use?
Points are always use dependent, a thousand points in equipment you don't need
or can't use is pretty much points wasted. In real life, you don't always know
what you'll need, and so there will always be room for strange, weird and
wasteful ways to spend your resources. Plus, you never know when
the rules will change (both real-life and Tuffleyverse) and an
apparently
dead-end system may have new life breathed into it.
An example was the submarine. Originally a novelty and with the spar
torpedo, a very limited weapon. The invention of the self-powered
torpedo made it a weapon to be reckoned with. Who knows what might happen to
walkers in future rule sets.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Yeah. But in Real Life, the only reason not to
I'm confused...
Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor. It's called designing vehicles to
fit their battlefield role. It just makes more sense. People with no common
sense when designing vehicles should not be rewarded for being irrational. If
you insist that you should be allowed to field masses of size 4 armor 1
vehicles, and your bitch is that under the point system as it stands it's not
enough price savings to be able to buy enough vehicles to swamp the enemy
who's using size 4 armor 4 vehicles, then I don't see your point. I think the
problem is you're trying to treat this as an abstract mathematical problem
where I want it to make sense in concrete terms.
> >I noticed that.
I never buy anything but Superior.
> Was it the stalth that made the difference?
It contributed.
I'm > guessing if it was a small, > stealthed force, it also wielded better
weapons and > FCS.
Better weapons--typically. I've had lots of opponents
who think HELs are wonderful. And then don't insist on fighting on a pool
table to take advantage of it. Better FCS: Almost invariably. Better tactics:
Well, duh.
> Silly, yes. But if they're allowed, they should be
Why should they be just as useful as any other unit? The answer to the second
question is because some people have a hardon for giant robots.
> I never buy anything but Superior, unless the vehicle's main mission is
> weapons vs. infantry.
Okay, am I the only person who ever designs sub-optimal units? Not
everyone is going to have the best available technology and systems to work
with; I work under the assumption that Superior is the cutting-edge
technology, advanced beyond the average. And even the powers that *have* such
advanced tech aren't always going to be able to get it to the front lines
right away. I think that it's a safe assumption that some worlds are going to
be well behind the technology curve.
Besides, it's kinda boring to make every single unit as good as it can
possibly be. I try to give each force that I design a personality all its
own -- that usually means making some inefficient choices. Like 'mechs,
for example. Or buying slow tracked instead of fast.
It might be interesting to play a campaign in a setting where Grav doesn't
have all the bugs worked out of it yet. Roll a die for each unit before the
game; if you roll badly enough the tank is grounded and needs repair.
> John Crimmins wrote:
> Okay, am I the only person who ever designs sub-optimal units? Not
Nope, I build my forces according to role and on the basis that Basic systems
are obsolete, Enhanced are regular units, and Superior are state of the art.
The vehicles that are the backbone of my forces are all enhanced, scouts and
special units are superior.
> John Crimmins wrote:
No, you're not alone ! I apply this principle to my FT units as well -
not all ships have the optimal number of PDS, in fact my large carriers are
designed on the same minimal armament principle as contemporary US
supercarriers - their job is to haul fighters, not guns. They'll be
surrounded by CEs whose job it is to protect them.
> John Crimmins wrote:
Actually I generally build the SG vehicles to fit the 'tech level' feel of the
forces. Jon gave some reasonable guidleines in the SG rule book and my line
troops hardly ever get the 'sports model' fitout. You'd be surprised how
careful a player is with his vehicles even on a large (8'x6') game if he's
only got Basic sensors, ECM and FC!!
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
I think your confusion comes in focusing on Oerjan's real point, which is that
the cost of armor does not reflect it's effect on the abilities of the
vehicle.
> Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor. It's
I don't recall ever making any such "bitch".
I think the problem is you're trying to
> treat this as an abstract mathematical problem where I
Unfortunately, since this is a game, and NOT real life (sad that that
disclaimer must continue to be brought up), it becomes necessary at some
point to put mathematical values on concepts, or they can't be included in the
rules.
> > Was it the stalth that made the difference?
But did it contribute in the same proportion as it cost you in points? I
haven't looked at it, but Oerjan's claim (As I see it, he might disagree)is
that it probably didn't. He never said stealth was REALLY useless, merely that
it was so overpriced as to make it PRACTICALLY nigh to useless.
> I'm > guessing if it was a small, > stealthed force,
All of which supports my suggestion: That that same high tech force, with less
stealth, but still with superior weapons, FCS, and tactics, would
probably STILL have trounced the larger low-tech force.
> > Silly, yes. But if they're allowed, they should be
Because you bothered to put them in the game at all - see my last post.
> The answer to the second question is because some
Myself personally not being one of them. I used to irritated my fellow BT
players by insisting on running vehicles.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Yes, large vehicles will carry more armor. It's called designing
Masses of size 4 armour 1 vehicles - gee, that sounds very much like
today's USAR with their Bradleys, and the soon-to-be-purchased LAVs even
more so! OK, with the latest add-on armour they probably rank as size 4
armour 2...
In a game of modern (2001 AD) combat, would you want the points values for the
US Bradleys and LAV 3s to reflect
a) their combat power, or
b) their purchase cost?
If you answer b), you have to include a rule that the US player always gets at
least 5 times as much money to spend on equipping his forces as the opponent,
or else he'll lose all the time. In real life the US has all that money, of
course, but do you really think that this should be explicitly
included in the game rules?
If you instead answer a), I'm going to follow up by asking why you choose
b) for DirtSide - so I don't expect you to answer a) for the modern game
:-)
> >I never buy anything but Superior, unless the vehicle's main mission
In other words, you deliberately exploit one of the biggest faults of the
design system :-)
> >Was it the stalth that made the difference?
Which would have contributed more - the Stealth you used, or the 20-30%
extra vehicles you could've had if you hadn't used Stealth?
> >I'm guessing if it was a small, stealthed force, it also wielded
In which case your use of a more points-efficient FCS almost certainly
negated your use of *less* points-efficient Stealth. If you restricted
yourself to level-1 Stealth, your FCS advantage probably even outweighed
the Stealth deficiency all on its own - and then you put superior
armament and tactics on top of that.
In other words, your battles are multi-factor experiments. Did you keep
track of which factors contributed with what amount? If not, how do you know
that the Stealth contributed to your success, rather than detracted
from it?
Regards,
Point taken. This *is* science fiction...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:44:44 -0700 Binhan Lin <Lin@RXKINETIX.com>
writes:
> Points shouldn't be the only measure of a unit's effectiveness, which
Okay with me. But I repeat I favor dropping the points thing entirely.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:11:41 +1100 "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> writes:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:33:44 +0100 Oerjan Ohlson
<oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> <snip>
> Remember: About half what I write to you is toungue-in-cheek. You just
LOL!!!!!
> I can't really comment on that since I don't have Heavy Gear, but your
Love those design systems. Assumptions, it's always the assumptions that get
you...
> Regards,
Gracias,